JPost.com | BlogCentral

In the aftermath of the Annapolis Summit, negotiations over a Permanent Status Agreement (PSA) are expected to continue apace. The current negotiations agenda over a PSA are comprised of several issues: borders and territorial arrangements, Jerusalem, refugees, security and the establishment of a Palestinian state. This agenda is unsuitable for the future challenges facing the two sides and doesn?t serve Israel's interests.

The current negotiations agenda is based on the agenda of the Lausanne Conciliation Commission (5/49) which convened after Israel's War of Independence. The Commission established that the issues of territories, refugees and the status of Jerusalem, were the key issues for the resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict. This typology was endorsed and expanded by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (11/67, 10/73 respectively), the 1978 Camp David Accords (9/78), the Madrid Peace Conference (10/91), the Oslo Process leading up to the Taba Talks (9/93, 1/01), as well as by non-governmental efforts such as the Geneva Initiative (10/03). The different drafts dealing with permanent status (Beilin Abu Mazen agreement, Ayalon-Nusseibeh, etc) were also based on this typology, as were the negotiation working groups for permanent status between 1999-2001.

The main working assumptions of this agenda have become irrelevant. In 1949, the aim of negotiations was not the establishment of a Palestinian state but rather the resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Arab states. However, since the Madrid Conference, the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israel's relations with that state have been the main issue of negotiations in tandem to solving the conflict itself.

Why is this so important? The answer is that the negotiation agenda has systematic influence on the chances of success as well as over the ability to implement any potential agreement. This is due to the fact that the negotiation structure influences the division of working groups and their mandate. Each working group tends to create a 'package' deal based on an internal logic of 'give and take'. Such a deal influences the capacity to implement the final agreement and to provide an answer to future problems that may arise between the sides.

Moreover, the current agenda creates an 'all or nothing' dynamic that is bad for Israel. Israel has an essential interest in ending its control over the Palestinian population. For this reason, there is a need for the establishment of a Palestinian entity that is able to provide for the needs of the population and to fight terror.

The current negotiation agenda 'blocks' any discussion over future interstate relations until the historic issues are settled. In other words, according to the current typology of issues, there can be no negotiations over economic relations until an agreement over sovereignty on the Temple Mount is reached. What should an alternative negotiation agenda look like? It needs to be derived from issues dealing with relations between Israel and a future Palestinian state. The analyses done by the Reut Institute shows that these can be grouped around 5 clusters:

a. Historic Issues : This cluster may cover the establishment of a Palestinian state, the realization of the Palestinian right of self determination and issues regarding Palestinian representation; borders and the division of sovereignty in Jerusalem and over water; access to and worship in the Holy Sites; the refugee problem.

b. Intrusive Issues: This cluster may cover all intrusions of Israel and Palestine into one another's sovereign space including, for example, safe passage (traditionally under the topic of "territory") and the usage of Palestinian airspace by Israel.

c. Movement and Personal Security Issues : This cluster may cover the fight against terrorism (traditionally under "security"); law enforcement; arrangements for movement through entry and exit points to Israel and the Palestinian state; the Israeli-Palestinian border regime; arrangements on movement and access to the Holy Basin (under "Jerusalem") and movement on special roads (under "territory").

d. Conventional Issues : This cluster may cover most other civilian issues in which Israel's relations with the Palestinian state will be no different to that between Israel and any other state.

e. The Status of Israeli Arabs : In permanent status, the status of Arab citizens of Israel will become a major outstanding issue between the two sides. Those among the Palestinians who promote the Ethos of Struggle are expected to turn this issue into the major arena for continuing the struggle against Israel.

My recommendation is to design a negotiation agenda around these clusters. The exception is the issue of Arab citizens of Israel. Since this will not be an object of negotiations between the sides, it should be considered within all the other clusters.

(See the appendix to this post that details the difference between splitting up the issues for working groups according to the present negotiation agenda and the one proposed here).

This new structure has a number of additional advantages: First, it is a 'forward facing typology' because it focuses on creating agreements that are relevant to the reality of two states living alongside one another. Second, it protects against the 'all or nothing' dynamic because it allows progress on issues pertaining to future state to state relations parallel to negotiations on the historic issues. Finally, this rearrangement sets the basic framework for conducting relations in permanent status.

Gidi Grinstein is the founder and president of the Reut Institute.